Talk:Islamophobia in Canada

Removing redundancies

Hey @Hassamm: and @Jaobar:, I'll be removing some redundancies and re-writing part of the article.

For example we have two media sections and each repeat the same facts:

She cited the case of the Toronto 18 plot, where outlets like Toronto Star recognized that the suspects were at the fringe of the Muslim community and gave coverage to Muslim leaders, allowing them to present a more peaceful side of Islam.

and the recently added:

For example, the CIC praised the Toronto Star and La Press for their sympathetic and comprehensive coverage of the 2006 “Toronto 18” terrorist plot.

are basically the same.VR _talk 17:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Academic works should be prioritized over opinion

By now, *everyone* in Canada has some opinion of Islamophobia. I think we should prioritize academic work over newspaper editorials. Using these editorials sometimes is ok, but we need to be careful to not give it too much weight.VR _talk 17:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal opinions have no place in Wikipedia, so your heading should read, "no personal opinions, please."

I strongly disagree. Public opinion is the true measure of the way society thinks, not the often-biased writings of academics. Transportfan70 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Merging stats

I'm merging the section on stats and public opinion.VR _talk 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Definition

The definition section on this page replicates much of the material that is present at, and belongs at, Islamophobia. For example, it quote the lengthy Runnymede Trust definition from 1997 and attributes it to "Ontario Human Rights Commission". We also give an entire section to the opinion of one paper that wants to use the term "Islamoprejudice", something that's not popular at all in the Canadian discourse.

So i think we should merge this section with "overview" and move the more generic stuff back to Islamophobia.VR _talk 22:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear VR _talk, thanks for your messages. In my opinion, repeating some basic components of the definition is an essential part of this article. I always assume that when writing articles, we are to approach the subject with the view that the reader has no idea about the concept in question. To assume that a basic definition should be developed by leaving the article in question to the foundation article seems problematic. I don't see the benefit of deleting the definition section, other than to make the article shorter. Other comments about your other edits soon. Best, Jaobar (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree we should state a definition of Islamophobia. But right now we seem to give a lot of weight to a 20-year old definition from the UK. We also give a lot of room to non-mainstream views. To me, its all about giving things their due weight.VR _talk 06:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)